NIV or ESV?

[Van]

Talk about taking a blind leap! You make wild assertions and from that basis construct completely invalid conclusions.

This statement is a wild assertion devoid of truth.

Many times the identical reading of the text between the TNIV and 2011 NIV have nothing whatsoever to do with inclusive language. The 2011 NIV took a step or two back from the inclusive language of the TNIV. (By the way, I agreed with most of the renderings in the TNIV). And by what authority to you call them "gender inclusive mistranslations" Van?

Yet another Calvinist, questioning the qualifications of a non-Cal. This constant use of logical fallacy speaks louder than the smear campaign.

No, it is not a title for Christ alone.

No one said it was! So yet another effort at disinformation and red herring subject change from the Calvinist who claims "from" means "before."

Of course Christ Himself was called the Son of man. And He called Himself that. But you can't deny that many times, especially in the Old Testament the phrase meant a human being. And 'sons of men' meant humanity.

The author of Hebrews (Hebrews 2:6) indicated "son of man" referred to Christ at Psalm 8:4, yet the NIV removed the title.

Bottom line, both the ESV and NIV2011 are worthless as study bibles, as they mistranslate verse after verse.

 

[evangelist6589]

One of us is confused.

"Our aim is to translate the NIV is such as way as to provide the optimum combination of transparency to the original documents...."

http://www.niv-cbt.org/translators/

Stating the obvious (before you say it) we all know that transparency speaks to the philosophy of interpretation and not a claim that the translation is transparent to the original.

Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005 (with D.A. Carson).

I have this book and read it in seminary. Its quite scholarly. I would trust the POV of Moo anyday on this issue over someone like RC Sproul or John MacArthur whom are not NT Scholars.

 

[Van]

This is a case of Van vs. Van. Who's gonna' win?

Rippon likes to slice and dice others and create fictional disinformation without any commitment to truth.

Numerous examples have shown that both the NIV 2011 and ESV mistranslate the inspired words of God. They both also add to the text to reverse the meaning, or mistranslate the text to reverse the meaning, to harmonize scripture with man-made preconception.

So those who want to study as closely as they can the original message as found in the original language, in light of its grammar and historical word meanings, they must turn away from the NIV2011 and the ESV.

1) Sanctify means sanctify

2) From means from

3) Son of man is a title for the Christ and should not be removed for political correctness.

For study, stick with the NASB95, and compare with the HCSB, NET, NKJV, and WEB.

 

[JonC]

Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005 (with D.A. Carson).

I have this book and read it in seminary. Its quite scholarly. I would trust the POV of Moo anyday on this issue over someone like RC Sproul or John MacArthur whom are not NT Scholars.

I am not sure what you mean here - but I do appreciate the scholarship of the NIV committee. When I look for commentary I consider the views of many of the NIV translators (Moo, Fee, Mounce, Waltke). But just because, for example, Dr. Mounce believes something should be translated in a certain way does not mean that he prevails in that situation (somewhere, I can't remember where, Mounce spoke of the difficulty working through the translation as a group...they don't always agree but one interpretation makes it in the text).

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

In post number 43 you had said:"But thought-for-thought translation cannot capture the essence of the meaning as effectively as a direct, verbatim translation does."And I told you in reply:"Where in the world did you get the notion that any Bible translation in English can be verbatim?"

You're right, of course. I missed that post. I was speaking too generally. Nonetheless, I can't agree the NIV is a formal equivalent. Nelson and Zondervan neither one claim it to be one.

 

[Rippon]

Yet another Calvinist, questioning the qualifications of a non-Cal. This constant use of logical fallacy speaks louder than the smear campaign.

I have said nothing about Calvinism in the post your are allegedly rersponding to. Get off your kick for a season.

So yet another effort at disinformation and red herring subject change from the Calvinist who claims "from" means "before."

Again,I said nothing about Calvinism in my post that you are supposedly "responding" to. And I had not made any comment on "from" or "before" on any thread. You have a big disconnect Van.

The author of Hebrews (Hebrews 2:6) indicated "son of man" referred to Christ at Psalm 8:4, yet the NIV removed the title.

You don't understand clear English. It's right there in the text,plain as day --son of man.

Bottom line, both the ESV and NIV2011 are worthless as study bibles, as they mistranslate verse after verse.

You are scraping the bottom of the barrel Van. You said nothing in your post about the ESV until now when you make a conclusion based on nothing. You need to demonstrate --not merely assert.

And as I demonstrated with a laugh --just one year ago you were singing the praises of the NIV. You were happy to say that your church uses it and that many times the NIV gets it right. So, it's a case of Van vs. Van. Who's going to win?:wavey:

 

[Van]

Rippon claims the NIV2011 version of Psalm 8:4 contains the words "son of man."

what is mankind that you are mindful of them,
human beings that you care for them?

So more disinformation from the fount of disinformation.

Next, the disinformation fount said I said nothing about the ESV. Does translating from as before ring a bell? From means from.

Bottom line, both the ESV and the NIV2011 contain numerous mistranslations, such as translating from as before at Revelation 13:8, and are therefore worthless as study bibles. Stick with the NASB95, and compare with the NET, HCSB, NKJV, and WEB.

 

[Rippon]

Rippon claims the NIV2011 version of Psalm 8:4 contains the words "son of man."

You were referencing Hebrews 2:6. Get it straight.

Regarding Psalm 8:4 a footnote gives an alternate rendering: a son of man that you care for him?

Next, the disinformation fount said I said nothing about the ESV. Does translating from as before ring a bell? From means from.

Van, you made an entire post blasting the NIV and then you conclude it with your "bottom-line" mantra and trash the ESV as well even though your post had said nothing whatsoever about the ESV! You are dispossessed of a rational mind.

Bottom line --at the end of the day --in point of fact --you may use any hackneyed expression you want. You are not to be taken seriously Mr. Shuck & Jive. :laugh:

 

[JonC]

You're right, of course. I missed that post. I was speaking too generally. Nonetheless, I can't agree the NIV is a formal equivalent. Nelson and Zondervan neither one claim it to be one.

I do not think that there is a question the NIV did not follow the formal equivalence method. I think of it as dynamic equivalent, but mildly (as implied by the information on the website). It’s, IMHO, somewhere in between. I don’t know that I would place the ESV squarely as formal equivalent (trying to maintain the literary style, they have altered the original word order…making it less clumsy than the NASB and perhaps in a literary sense a better translation - although I still prefer the NASB). But the more a translation goes into dynamic equivalence, the more the translators will make interpretive decisions for the readers.

 

[Rippon]

Rippon likes to slice and dice others and create fictional disinformation without any commitment to truth.

In other words you are perfectly comfortable in your lies.

You are again saying things completely unrelated to my post.

In post #115 I had quoted what you reported a year ago.

You had said on June 26,2013 that your church uses the NIV? Does it still?
If it does, why do you still still attend? You would be a hypocrite to do so after saying such disgraceful things about the translation these days.

You also said on June 26,2013 that "quite often the NIV gets it right."

Presently you are saying the NIV is worthless.

And that is why I say it's a case of Van vs. Van. Will the real Van please stand up?

 

[Rippon]

It's such a mysterious thing. I still can't quote you Jon.

But regarding your last post; you said the NIV is a mild functionally equivalent translation according to the information on the website. Are you speaking of the Zondervan article which TND quoted? The article didn't sy anything about the NIV or TNIV being mildly dynamic. It placed the NIV and TNIV in the mediating category along with the HCSB, NAB, Net, NJB and REB.

On the matter of clumsiness of texts, I would say the ESV is more unwieldly than the NASBU. The latter is less awkward than the NKJV too.

In all Bible translations interpretive decisions are made all the time by the translators including what may be called the more direct versions.

 

[Van]

The Calvinist fount of disinformation has gone on a rampage.

I referred to Psalm 8:4 as missing son of man. Folks, just look back, the found of disinformation is providing an avalanche of disinformation.

Then we get the change the subject shuck and jive, making the disinformation charge about my consistency. Anything but the subject at hand.

Bottom line, I have shown numerous verses where both the ESV and NIV2011 mistranslate the text, adding to the text to reverse its meaning, and mistranslating from as before. No one should rely on either as a study bible.

And one more item on the NIV mistranslation hit list, grant or allow or give does not mean enable via irresistible grace. Only Calvinist translators would make that choice. Even the ESV does not stray that far from truth.

 

[JonC]

It's such a mysterious thing. I still can't quote you Jon.

But regarding your last post; you said the NIV is a mild functionally equivalent translation according to the information on the website. Are you speaking of the Zondervan article which TND quoted? The article didn't sy anything about the NIV or TNIV being mildly dynamic. It placed the NIV and TNIV in the mediating category along with the HCSB, NAB, Net, NJB and REB.

I'm sorry, I should have indicated which site. I was speaking of the NIV CBT website (http://www.niv-cbt.org/). I said that because of their explanation of the method and philosophy used in interpretation (which would not meet the definition of functionally equivalent).

 

[Van]

Should we delve into which is worse, the ESV or the NIV2011? Clearly the NIV reflects more Calvinist bias, but gets many verses right, and is much easier to read and understand.

 

[Yeshua1]

Should we delve into which is worse, the ESV or the NIV2011? Clearly the NIV reflects more Calvinist bias, but gets many verses right, and is much easier to read and understand.

Strange that the Biv, whose translators were NOT mainly Reformed/Calvinist, would be more calvinist then a version that had prominent calvinists/Reformed on it, as the esv!

And BOTh are good versions of the Bible to read and use, just prefer a more literal version such as Nasb/Nkjv!

 

[Rippon]

I'm sorry, I should have indicated which site. I was speaking of the NIV CBT website (http://www.niv-cbt.org/). I said that because of their explanation of the method and philosophy used in interpretation (which would not meet the definition of functionally equivalent).

The CBT website says nothing about the NIV being a mild functionally equivalent (dynamic) translation.

 

[Rippon]

the NIV CBT website (http://www.niv-cbt.org/).

And from that website some interesting things will be found.

A stand-alone reading (based on looking at various versions on Bible Hub)is in Psalm 106:37:false gods. The 84 NIV had the word "demons" as just about every translation.

Another stand-alone is found in Philippians 4:13 where the NIV has :"I can do all this" i.e. all things mentioned previously in verses 11 and 12. The 84 edition rendered it as "I can do everything." Most translations followed suit with similar wording such as 'I can do all things."

In Philippians 2:6 the NIV now has :"something to be used to his own advantage" whereas it had "something to be grasped" as many other translations still have it. The HCSB's rendering is similar to the 2011 NIV:"something to be used for his own advantage."

Mark 15:27 now has the word rebels. It used to render it robbers as most translations have it. The NLT uses the word "revolutionaries."

Job 9:33 now is rendered "If only there were someone to mediate between us,someone to bring us together." It used to read :"If only there were someone to arbitrate between us, to lay his hand uoun us both."

The NLT and GWT also use the word mediator. But a number of translations hold onto the word "umpire" for this verse --which is kind of funny. The Darby, WEB Bible, ASV and NASBU all have it. It's better than "daysman" though.

 

[Van]

Strange that the Biv, whose translators were NOT mainly Reformed/Calvinist, would be more calvinist then a version that had prominent calvinists/Reformed on it, as the esv!

And BOTh are good versions of the Bible to read and use, just prefer a more literal version such as Nasb/Nkjv!

Strange but true! Why did the prominent Calvinists translators of the ESV not adopt every biased translation found in the NLT and NIV? As others have said, the ESV is simply a warmed over version of the Revised Standard Version, and they did not even adopt some of the changes found in the New Revised Standard Version. Perhaps, like car makers planned obsolesce, they plan on slowly introducing more and more mistranslations in future versions, so this first ESV may be like a Trojan horse, to gain acceptance, then future revisions will launch the attack on truth. Same MO as the NIV and its 2011 update.

 

[JonC]

The CBT website says nothing about the NIV being a mild functionally equivalent (dynamic) translation.

I have never heard anyone describe the NIV as “mildly functionally equivalent”… but mildly dynamic equivalent is evident by their website. You are taking the argument many take up against the Trinity being a true doctrine (the Bible doesn’t mention “Trinity”), which is a flawed argument. The website provides an explanation of their philosophy and method of translation - which is mildly dynamic equivalent.

The NIV is an effort to articulate Scripture in a way that the authors might have spoken if they were speaking in English to a contemporary English speaking audience and to ease the understanding of each verse(this certainly… and by definition… would not fall under the “functionally equivalent” method). While it is perhaps asinine to call the NIV a functionally equivalent translation, their method does touch on dynamic equivalency. I say “mildly” because of the NIV’s status among other translations that have adopted this model.

 

[Rippon]

Jon, you are confused. The terms dynamic and functionally equivalent mean the same thing. The former was changed by the author of the theory --Eugene Nida, because of folks misunderstanding the term dynamic equivalency.

L. Ryken is a major spokesperson for the ESV and chief thrasher of the NIV. He calls it mildly dynamic.

When you sort out the fact that the two terms refer to the same thing, then you can reword your post and clarify what in the world you are trying to convey because as it is you are contradicting yourself.